going beyond the debate: using technology and instructionfor a balanced reading program

AS THE DEBATE OVER THE VALUE OF COMPUTERIZED READING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CONTINUES, TEACHER-LIBRARIANS SHOULD CONSIDER HOW THEY MAY BE USED TOGETHER WITH A READING SKILLS PROGRAM TO HELP SCHOOLS IMPLEMENT A BALANCED LITERACY PROGRAM. SUCH A PROGRAM WOULD PROMOTE COLLABORATION AND HELP TEACHERS TO IMPLEMENT DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION.

Reading management programs such as Accelerated Reader (AR) and Reading Counts! offer students the opportunity to select books at their own reading levels, to read independently and to verify their work by taking a computerized test upon completion of the book. Interested teacher-librarians can help teachers individualize Language Arts instruction by using reading management programs combined with reading skill instruction as an alternative to the traditional classroom novel approach. In content area classes, teacher-librarians can help teachers promote reading and differentiate instruction by requiting supplemental enrichment reading that reinforces reading skills. Both these uses of reading management programs will increase the teacher-librarian's opportunities for collaboration.

Not so long ago it was considered standard practice for Language Arts teachers to assign a class novel that every student was expected to read. For a month or two the class would study one piece of fiction on which class lessons were based. More than likely, students were assigned a specific number of pages to read each week-night, then faced quizzes on certain chapters and a major "unit" test at the end of the book. In some more creative classrooms, students might be encouraged to dress up as characters or cook food to learn more about the period in which the novel was set. In the less creative classrooms, study guides would be assigned. Students would be required to answer basic plot questions for each assigned chapter.

Under this "class novel" model, the school library existed quite separately from classroom instruction. Most students would visit the school library with a teacher only if reference resources were needed for other, nonfiction assignments. A few teachers asked students to read fiction independently and have their parents sign something verifying their children spent certain amounts of time reading. But since most teachers felt this assignment was only as valuable as the supervising parent required it to be, it was not heavily emphasized in grades or class time. Consequently, if students wanted fiction from the school library, they usually went on their own time.

There were several advantages to this class novel approach:

• Teachers and school districts selected "quality" materials that were "appropriate and educational" for students. Every book selected for students had been approved, usually by at least three professionals, and was on an "approved list." Such lists provide safety nets for teachers and school districts.

• Reading a book together as a class allowed students to participate in a teacher-led discussion of specific elements of the piece of literature. Teachers could point out important themes or other literary elements of literature.

• Teacher-led discussions also allowed students to experience and/or process difficult issues as a group with an adult leader.

• Spelling and vocabulary lists and history lessons could be related to the class novel, providing an integrated learning experience.

There are also several disadvantages to this approach:

• Many students were "turned off" reading by having no choice about what they were assigned to read.

• The reading level of the assigned piece was too easy for good readers and too difficult for struggling readers, further alienating some students.

• The assigned reading pace was too fast for some, and too slow for others.

• Typically, a few students who liked and understood the book would carry class discussions while other students slumped down in their chairs, avoiding participation.

• There was no accountability for outside student reading. Parents could sign off indicating students had read 30 minutes per night but no one knew for sure.

New technology, however, has drastically changed the way fiction can be taught. Programs such as Accelerated Reader and Reading Counts! are commercial reading management programs. Schools that purchase such programs buy software that includes computer-based tests for books. Books are assigned point values based on length and level of difficulty and students earn points by reading books and taking the tests. In some schools, students are graded or earn prizes based on their points, though the prize aspect of the program has met with much criticism (Biggers, 2001; Carter, 1996) and may just as easily be avoided altogether. Teachers can easily print reports showing what students have read and the points they've earned.

Do reading programs work? While some students come to school loving to read, and others may learn to love to read by being introduced to outstanding literature, it has been my experience that requiting students to read, as my school's use of Accelerated Reader did, resulted in more students discovering that they liked to read than had I not had this tool. Simply put, some students did not know they like to read until they were required to do so. Once required, they discovered favorite authors and genres. In my opinion, our school could not have required students to read without using a reading management program for accountability purposes. Such is the nature of our educational climate.

A review of current research related to reading management programs reveals a plethora of what I judge are inconclusive studies, most of which have been discredited by researchers with opposing viewpoints. Some studies have found that similar students who participated in reading management programs showed significant improvement in reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading, and even showed better attendance (Topping & Paul, 1999; Vollands, Topping & Evans, 1999; Paul, VanderZee, Rue & Swanson, 1996). Another study determined a sample of Grade 7 students showed no significant gains with Accelerated Reader compared with those who do not use it (Pavonetti, Brimmer & Cipielweski, 2002). Paul's studies have lost credibility with some because of his relationship with Renaissance Learning, Accelerated Reader's parent company. He and his wife were its co-founders in the mid-1980s (Chenoweth, 2001). The research by Pavonetti et al is criticized because of an unscientific research design and because "their experimental and control groups were not matched for socioeconomic and other factors" (cited in Krashen, 2004, p. 444), while others argue the schools in the Pavonetti study did not follow the best practice guidelines set forth by Renaissance Learning in implementing Accelerated Reader (Tardrew, 2003; Kerns, 2003). Yet those same critics have also been discredited because they too are associated with Renaissance Learning (Krashen, 2004). Adding fuel to both sides, there are ample practitioners offering criticisms of different aspects of the AR program (Biggers, 2001; Chenoweth, 2001; Carter, 1996; Prince & Barron, 1998), and a few enthusiasts purporting to have seen success (Anderson, 2001; Greer, 2003; Guastello, 2002). So goes the research to date, without conclusive significant findings on either side of the debate.

At this point, only one researcher, William Sanders of the University of Tennessee, who seems to be accepted by both critics and proponents, provides an explanation for this phenomenon. He concludes: "'Basically what the company [Renaissance Learning] offers is a good tool. If teachers use the tool as feedback on the progress of kids, that is very useful. It is not a stand-alone reading program'" (cited in Chenowith, 2001, p. 50).

The effect that reading management programs can have on middle school Language Arts instruction varies by teacher, but can be quite dramatic. For some, these programs have offered a solution to some of the major problems with the traditional "class novel" approach to teaching. For instance, rather than assigning everyone the same novel, with tests and quizzes to check for understanding, teachers can assign students to earn a certain number of points during a grading period. Under this system, each student chooses his or her own book, based on reading ability and interest. Students also read at their own pace and take the computerized test when they finish their book(s).

Instead of spending class time trying to force a discussion over assigned chapters and quizzing students over plot details, teachers can spend time teaching and practicing real reading skills such as those outlined by Stephanie Harvey and Anne Goudvis in Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding (2000). This important work shows teachers how to ensure that they are actually teaching higher-level reading skills such as making connections, making inferences, synthesizing information and determining importance (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000; Zimmerman & Keene, 1997). The pairing of reading skills instruction with reading management programs that require students to spend time reading and practicing these skills is at the heart of a balanced literacy program. Thus reading management technology may be used as a tool for teachers to keep up with the ever increasing demand for teachers to "individualize and differentiate" instruction for each student.

Incorporating higher-level thinking skills into classroom discussions also serves as a counterbalance to the recall-based comprehension tests used in reading management programs. Students can use the books they choose for independent reading to practice these skills. Class discussions change from "What happened in Chapter 14?" to sharing enthusiasm for books and examples of inferences or other reading skills. In this system all students are accountable for reading. In addition, students cannot rely on others to carry them during class discussions or to provide answers on a study guide.

And ultimately, in classrooms where reading management programs are used well in combination with reading skill instruction, teachers and teacher-librarians work together to help students get to know themselves as readers, in much the same way adults do. Students learn genres of fiction and discover their personal preferences for action/adventure, mystery, fantasy, etc. Thus Language Arts teachers and teacher-librarians may work together as readers' advisors, sharing the joys of reading and selection with students.

Content area teachers are under increasing pressure to reinforce literacy skills and provide opportunities for reading across the curriculum. This is problematic for some, as they feel that their expertise is in their content area and not literacy. They may also feel pressured to cover a vast amount of content, as set forth in their curriculum guide. This is where a teacher-librarian utilizing a reading management program can help content teachers meet their curricular objectives while addressing demands for literacy, reading and differentiated instruction. By simply providing teachers and/or students with lists of titles related to the content area, teacher-librarians can help teachers use reading management programs to meet all these goals.

As in Language Arts, the content area teacher can require students to earn a specified number of points using a title list, related to units of study, created by the teacher-librarian. While many districts encourage literacy skills to be reinforced across the curriculum, it is likely the Language Arts teacher will provide the bulk of literacy skills instruction. Thus incorporating a reading management program and requiting students to use reading skills allow the content teacher to meet the school-wide goal of encouraging literacy skills while maintaining the primary focus on content and achieving curricular objectives.

Following are some best practices for using reading management programs schoolwide. Many of these suggestions and more are also included in the best practice recommendations by Renaissance Learning.

• Reading practice time should be a part of a balanced literacy program where reading skills such as those espoused by Harvey and Goudvis (2000) are taught separately from reading practice time;

• students need significant amounts of practice reading time at school;

• students must be engaged during this time, and accountable for it;

• student goals must be differentiated, so that all feel successful;

• teachers must vigilantly monitor, diagnose, intervene and support their students;

• students must be allowed to use alternative assessments at times; and

• students must be allowed to read outside their reading range at times.

Amidst all the research and rhetoric, is it really all that surprising that, as is the case with most instructional practices, they are only as effective as the teacher who implements them? In the end, reading management programs are mere tools, to be used well or poorly. But if they can be used well, to create enthusiastic readers, to help students know themselves, including their abilities and preferences as readers, and to provide teachers with a way of holding students accountable for practicing reading skills in a differentiated manner, should they not be embraced, or at the very least recognized as valuable tools in some cases? It is time for outspoken opponents of reading management programs to confine their comments to specific situations where poor implementation is not helping students or teachers. Similarly, opponents need to realize that some practitioners--and I include myself among them--have experienced the joy of watching middle school students learn to love reading as a result of being required to read. With the proper conditions for implementation, reading management programs can be powerful tools that no willing teacher, teacher-librarian, or school should be discouraged from using.

Anderson, J. (2001). Using Accelerated Reader. Teacher Librarian, 47(7), 31.

Biggers, D. (2001). The argument against Accelerated Reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 72-76.

Chenoweth, K. (2001). Keeping score. School Library Journal, 47(9), 48-51.

Carter, B. (1996). Hold the applause!: Do Accelerated Reader and Electronic Bookshelf send the right message? School Library Journal, 42(10), 22-25.

Greer, J. (2003). A positive experience with Accelerated Reader. Teacher Librarian, 30(4), 32.

Guastello, F. (2002). Accelerated Reader. Knowledge Quest, 30(4), 53-55.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Kerns, G. (2003). Accelerated Reader: Lasting effects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(1), 4.

Krashen, S. (2004). A comment on the Accelerated Reader debate: The pot calls the kettle black. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 444-445.

Paul, T., VanderZee, D., Rue, T., & Swanson, S. (1996). Impact of the Accelerated Reader technology-based literacy program on overall academic achievement and school attendance. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 197-211.

Pavonetti, L, Brimmer K., & Cipielweski, J. (2002). Accelerated Reader: What are the lasting effects on the reading habits of middle school students exposed to Accelerated Reader in elementary grades? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(4), 300-312.

Prince, R., & Barron, D. (1998). Technology and reading (Part 11) Computer-based reading programs and rewards: Some misleading intentions. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 114(8), 48-50.

Tardrew, S. (2003). Accelerated reader: Lasting effects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(1), 4.

Topping, K., & Paul, T. (1999). Computer-assisted assessment of practice at reading: A large scale survey using Accelerated Reader data. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 219-232.

Vollands, S., Topping, K., & Evans, R. (1999). Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action research. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 197-211.

Zimmerman, S., & Keene, E. (1997). Mosiac of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

~~~~~~~~

By Valerie Grenawalt

Valerie Grenawalt taught middle school Language Arts for nine years in Littleton, CO. She holds an MA in Education from the University of Denver where she also recently earned her MLIS.